Funny - I don't see any mention of 'exclusive constitutional review.' Which clause are you looking at?
Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.
What, exactly, are you arguing? You suggest that Mr. Justice Scalia is "wrong" when he states:
"The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution."
Sorry, sport, but "Article III Sec 1 & 2" don't contradict Mr. Justice Scalia's statement - unless, perhaps, you adopt the circular argument that 'limited judicial review constitutes exclusive and final constitutional review because limited judicial review is equivalent to exclusive and final constitutional review.'
;>)
Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that?
LOL! "Easy to find?" Put it in print, my friend: quote the constitutional article, section and clause that delegate to the court the power of exclusive and final constitutional review. "Article III Sec 1 & 2" say nothing of the sort. 'I suspect you're avoiding a direct quotation. Why is that?'
;>)
Here's a bit of what Marshall said in 1803...
You claim that 'the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means,' and that it delegates to 'the Supreme Court the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution.' Sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Marshall's 'opinion' is not equivalent to the United States Constitution...
;>)
John, you really should study Marshalls opinion, if you intend to dispute it.
LOL! Your attempts to change the subject are really quite entertaining! I have repeatedly disputed your suggestion that the Constitution delegates the power of exclusive and final constitutional review to the court. As for Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion, it remains logically flawed: no entity can claim a power to say what the law is, and claim simultaneously to be somehow bound by that same law.
;>)
That is precisely the issue. I invite you to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court the final say in constitutional interpretation.
Article III Sec 1 & 2 delegates the judicial Power to the USSC.
Final say? Thats BS, -- 'we the people' have final say.
Sorry, sport, but "Article III Sec 1 & 2" don't contradict Mr. Justice Scalia's statement - unless, perhaps, you adopt the circular argument that 'limited judicial review constitutes exclusive and final constitutional review because limited judicial review is equivalent to exclusive and final constitutional review.'
Sorry sport. You asked me to cite the article, section, and clause of the Constitution that delegates to the court judical power. Now you want to play word games about who's making circular arguments. -- You are, imo.
Here's another example. I wrote:
Funny, it was easy to find. I suspect you're hyping the situation. Why is that?
LOL! "Easy to find?" Put it in print, my friend: quote the constitutional article, section and clause that delegate to the court the power of exclusive and final constitutional review. "Article III Sec 1 & 2" say nothing of the sort. 'I suspect you're avoiding a direct quotation. Why is that?'
There is no such thing as "the power of exclusive and final constitutional review".. Thus, NO ONE can 'quote' it. -- Weird game you play.
You claim that 'the Constitution of the United States says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means,'
No, I did not. You lie.
and that it delegates to 'the Supreme Court the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution.'
Another lie. I've written no such thing.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Marshall's 'opinion' is not equivalent to the United States Constitution...
Never said it was. Do you enjoy making up such tales?
John, you really should study Marshalls opinion, if you intend to dispute it.
LOL! Your attempts to change the subject are really quite entertaining! I have repeatedly disputed your suggestion that the Constitution delegates the power of exclusive and final constitutional review to the court.
That is not my view. You're getting daffy.
As for Mr. Justice Marshall's opinion, it remains logically flawed: no entity can claim a power to say what the law is, and claim simultaneously to be somehow bound by that same law.
I suggest you write to some law review, outlining ~your~ 'logic' refuting Marshalls. -- Be sure to include lots of LOL's & smileys..